Yevamot 105a — the Talmud in English

And is it not taught in a beraita: If she removed the shoe but did not ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page location")

spit, and did not read, her chalitza is valid.

If she spat but did not remove the shoe and did not read, her chalitza is invalid.

Nevertheless, she was disqualified with regard to the brothers by virtue of the spitting.

If she read but did not spit and did not remove the shoe, there is no concern here

at all, and she was not disqualified even from yibum.

And now, this beraita

whose opinion is it?

If you say it is Rabbi Eliezer

of our Mishna, can it be said that according to his view,

if she removed the shoe but did not spit and did not

read, her chalitza is valid? But Rabbi Eliezer said,

that from the fact that it is written:

“Thus shall it be done,”

we learn that

an act that is an action prevents [the validity of chalitza if omitted]!

But spitting is an action!

Rather, it is obvious

that according to

Rabbi Akiva

it is, who said in the Mishna that if she did not spit, her chalitza is valid.

And it teaches

in the beraita:

If she spat but did not remove the shoe and did not read, her chalitza is invalid!

And now,

with regard to whom

was she disqualified?

If you say

that the intention is that she was not permitted

to everyone, it is obvious! Was there chalitza, so that she would be permitted to everyone?

There was no chalitza here at all!

Rather, is it not

certainly teaching us in the beraita that she was disqualified

with regard to the brothers. This proves it

that according to Rabbi Akiva, spitting disqualifies her with regard to the brothers, and she can no longer undergo yibum.

And we raised the question:

And according to Rabbi Akiva, what is different about spitting,

which disqualifies her with regard to the brothers,

and what is different about reading,

which does not disqualify her with regard to the brothers, as we learned in the beraita, “there is no concern here”? For are these two not both things that do not prevent the validity of chalitza?

And we explain:

Reading, which exists both at the beginning

of the chalitza, when the yevama says to the elders, “Who is my brother-in-law,”

and at the end

of the chalitza, when she says, “Thus shall it be done, and so forth,” therefore

it is not confused for him,

people will not err and say that this woman underwent yibum after chalitza, because they will think that the reading they have now heard is the reading that precedes the chalitza, and that the act of chalitza has not yet been performed; therefore she is still permitted to undergo yibum with the brothers.

In contrast,

spitting, which does not exist at the beginning, and

only

at the end,

after the chalitza,

exists—it is confused for him.

They will err and say that this yevama is undergoing yibum after chalitza, for she underwent yibum after the spitting, which is always performed after chalitza. If so, she certainly also already removed the shoe, and they will err and say that it is always permitted to undergo yibum after chalitza,

and they will come to permit a woman who underwent chalitza to the brothers.

And some say: This is what they sent to him

to Shmuel’s father:

A yevama who spat

in the court not at the time of the act of chalitza

should remove the shoe, and she does not need to spit another time

at the time of the chalitza.

Like that woman who came before Rabbi Ami, and Rabbi Abba bar Memel was sitting before him. She spat

that woman before him

before she removed the shoe [

before the chalitza].

Rabbi Ami said to him

to Rabbi Abba:

Remove the shoe for her, and release her from her quarrel [

that is, exempt her and send her away from the court], and she no longer needs to spit.

Rabbi Abba said to him: But we require spitting [

does she not need to spit]!

Rabbi Ami said to him:

She has already spat it

previously.

Rabbi Abba said to him:

Then let her spit

again,

and what of it!?

Rabbi Ami said to him:

A harmful result will emerge from it [

a mishap may emerge from this],

for if you say that she should return and spit, they will say

the people who saw that she spat again:

The first spitting

alone

has no substance,

and it did not disqualify her with regard to the brothers, for the court required her to spit again after the chalitza,

and they will come to permit a woman who underwent chalitza

who spat in order to undergo yibum

to the brothers .

Rabbi Abba said to him:

But we require

that the act of chalitza be

in its proper order!

That is, first the removal of the shoe, and only afterward the spitting!

Rabbi Ami said to him: The requirement that it be

in its proper order does not prevent validity .

Even if he performed it not in its proper order, the chalitza is valid .

He,

Rabbi Abba,

thought

that Rabbi Ami

was merely putting him off

as a request, and was telling him that the order does not prevent validity, but in truth the law is not so.

He went out, examined the matter, and found [

he went out, investigated, and found] that it is explicitly stated in a beraita.

For it is taught: Whether he advanced the removal of the shoe before the spitting, or whether he advanced the spitting before the removal of the shoe, what he did is effective.

And it is proven from here that the order does not prevent validity.

Levi went out to the villages [

he went out to the rural settlements].

They asked him

the inhabitants of the place:

A woman without hands,

who cannot remove the shoe with her hands,

what is the law: may she remove the shoe

with her teeth?

They also asked him:

A yevama who spat blood—what is the law?

Is it considered spitting or not?

They also asked him: It is written that the angel said to Daniel:

“But I shall tell you what is recorded in the writing of truth.”

That is, I shall tell you everything decreed in Heaven and recorded in writing, and it is true.

By implication [

it follows],

is there writing that is not true?!

He did not have

answers to the questions that they had asked him .

He came and asked

in

the study hall

those same questions.

Regarding the first question,

they said to him: Is it written, “And she removes it with her hand”?

It is not written so. If so, certainly she may also remove it with her mouth.

Regarding the second question, they answered him:

And is it written, “And she spits saliva,”

so that it would mean that she must spit specifically saliva alone, without any mixture whatsoever? Behold, “and she spits” is written without qualification. It follows that even saliva in which another substance is mixed is included. And when she spits blood, it is impossible that there not be traces of saliva mixed with it; therefore her chalitza is valid.

And regarding the last question that he had asked them:

“But I shall tell you what is recorded in the writing of truth”—is there writing that is not true?

They answered him:

This is not difficult: Here, it is a verdict accompanied by an oath,

that the Holy One, blessed is He, swore concerning it to fulfill it, for such a verdict is not annulled. And this is what is written, “in the writing of truth”: the Holy One, blessed is He, makes it true and fulfills it, and does not annul it.

But

here,

what implies that there is, as it were, writing that is not true refers to

a verdict not accompanied by an oath,

which can be annulled .

And

so

is

that which

said

Rav Shmuel bar Ami.

For Rav Shmuel bar Ami said in the name of Rabbi Yonatan: From where is it derived that a verdict accompanied by an oath is not torn up?

As it is stated: “Therefore I have sworn concerning the house of Eli: If the iniquity of the house of Eli shall be atoned for by sacrifice or by offering forever.”

Rabba said:

Indeed,

by sacrifice or by offering it is not atoned

for the iniquity of the house of Eli.

But it is atoned

for

through words of Torah.

Abaye said: By sacrifice or by offering it is not atoned, but it is atoned

for

through acts of kindness .

Rabba and Abaye came from the house of Eli [

they were from the house of Eli].

Rabba, who engaged in Torah, lived forty years.

Abaye, who engaged in Torah and

also

in acts of kindness, lived sixty years .

The Sages taught: There was one family in Jerusalem whose members would die at approximately eighteen years of age.

They came and informed Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai

about this.

He said to them: Perhaps you are from the family of Eli, concerning whom it is stated

of them:

“And all the increase of your house shall die as men” [

when they are still men] , and therefore the members of your family die in their youth! But there is advice for you:

Go and engage in Torah, and you will live.

They went and engaged in Torah, and lived. And they would call them the family of Yohanan, after the name

of Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai.

Rav Shmuel bar Unya said in the name of Rav: From where is it derived that the verdict of the community is not sealed?

And the Gemara does not allow Rav Shmuel bar Unya to finish his statement, and raises an objection:

But is a verdict of the community

not sealed? For it is written: “Though you wash with natron and use much soap, your iniquity is marked before Me!”

And this verse was said about the entire Jewish people!

Rather,

this is what Rav Shmuel said:

From where is it derived that even

if

the verdict

of the community

has been sealed, it is torn up

afterward?

As it is stated: “Who is like the Lord our God whenever we call to Him.”

That is, whenever we call to Him, He hears us, even if the verdict has been sealed.

And we wonder:

But is it not written: “Seek the Lord when He is found,”

which implies that He is not found at every time?

And we answer:

This is not difficult. This

which implies that He is not found at every time refers to

an individual [

that is, for an individual]. Whereas

this

which implies that He is found at every time refers to

the community.

An individual—when?

When is the time that the Holy One, blessed is He, is found for an individual?

Rav Nahman said in the name of Rabba bar Avuha: These are the ten days between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur .

They sent to Shmuel’s father: A yevama who spat blood should remove the shoe,

and should no longer undergo yibum, for she has already been disqualified with regard to the brothers. And the reason is

because it is impossible for there to be blood without traces of saliva,

and necessarily she also spat saliva; therefore it is valid spitting.

He raised an objection: Could it be that blood issuing from the mouth

of a man with a flux,

and

blood issuing

from the organ

of a man with a flux,

is impure,

like his saliva, his flux, his seminal emission, and his urine, which are the sources of a man with a flux and convey severe ritual impurity?

The verse teaches,

as it is written:

“His flux is impure.”

It implies that specifically his flux is impure,

but blood issuing from his mouth and from his organ is not impure, but pure!

And if you say that it is impossible for blood issuing from his mouth to be without traces of saliva, then why is blood issuing from the mouth of a man with a flux pure? Surely there is also saliva there, and his saliva is certainly impure!?

And we answer:

This is not difficult. Here,

what we said regarding the yevama, that it is impossible for there to be no traces of saliva, refers to

one who sucks,

who exerts herself to bring out saliva, in which case there are certainly traces of saliva.

But

here,

in the case of the man with a flux, it is speaking

of

blood that

trickles

from his mouth, and then it is possible that only blood emerged.

We learned in our Mishna:

A deaf-mute woman who underwent chalitza, and so forth

her chalitza is invalid.